Human-Large Carnivores Co-existence in Europe – A Comparative Stakeholder Network Analysis

Abstract

This study has been funded by the Life Programme of the European Union (LIFE EuroLargeCarnivores, LIFE16 GIE/DE/000661) and the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Consumer Protection, Baden-Württemberg. ACKNOWLEDGMENTSSpecial thanks for data management go to Johannes Erretkamps and Pieter van der Lei. For technical assistance, we would like to thank Raffael Hickisch, Kaja Weinandi, Carolin Maier, and Lena Holzapfel. We are grateful to Jenny Cockton for proofreading our non-native English. Sincere thanks go to all individual stakeholders who participated in the telephone interviews and workshops, the workshop moderators, and the many anonymous respondents of the survey. The following people have greatly contributed by collecting, documenting, translating, reporting, and systematically preprocessing primary data as part of inspiring intercultural cooperation:

Effects of Human Disturbance on Terrestrial Apex Predators

“…Carnivore conservation and management in humandominated landscapes illustrate the point. These are not only scientific issues because carnivore management and conflict resolution among involved stakeholders require social and political input to be successful [169,197,198]. Solid scientific evidence alone is not sufficient to manage predators effectively because social acceptability is equally important [43].…”

Governance Innovations for forest ecosystem service provision – Insights from an EU-wide survey

“…This enabled a statistical analysis within these variables in spite of the sample’s geographical focus on three central and northern European countries (cf. Grossmann et al, 2020 ).…”

Role of local communities in the social network of the protected area management

“…Furthermore, QNP generates very little revenue (MITADER, 2012), which is insufficient to share with all communities. Alternatively, corruption and vested interests within the local communities may prevent the distribution of the revenue to community members (Grossmann et al, 2020). Thus lack of information, transparency, and tangible benefits from QNP may strongly affect the willingness of its communities to actively engage in the network and participate collaboratively (Ullah & Kim, 2020).…”